Each date resolves YES if a 3rd Starship launch, intended to reach space, takes place before that date (local time at the launch site). Otherwise NO.
A "launch" is defined as the vehicle lifting off the pad, however slightly, under thrust from its engines.
"Starship" is defined as any vehicle designs descended from the existing designs of Starship - i.e. if they make substantial changes or rename the vehicle, it still counts. But a vehicle based on e.g. the Falcon 9 would not count, even if SpaceX called it a Starship.
Only missions with a planned trajectory that reaches space (100km altitude) count. So a 10km altitude flight test does not count.
See https://manifold.markets/chrisjbillington/by-which-dates-in-2023-will-the-sec for the 2nd test.
1,000
3.00Go for prop load:
The Starship team is go for prop load but keeping an eye on winds, now targeting 8:25 a.m. CT for liftoff
https://twitter.com/spacex
Starship Flight Test 3
Launch window Thursday, 14 March 2024 in 1 hour, 13:00 to 14:50 central European time
SpaceX stream: https://t.co/1u46r769Vp in 30 minutes
EDA stream: https://www.youtube.com/live/ixZpBOxMopc
NSF stream: https://www.youtube.com/live/RrxCYzixV3s
@Eliza I certainly will try to watch the launch, if it happens whilst I'm not asleep. It is easier to follow when a launch will happen on here than anywhere else.
@RyanTyznar Speculation / rumour / probably made up? (But perhaps it makes sense?)
FAA and SpaceX working closely and neither want licence to be issued long before flight in case of legal action against launch licence being issued. So SpaceX decide when they want to launch (mainly depending on weather now) and tell FAA when to actually issue licence probably last thing on day before launch.
Re legal action: Environmentalist groups like
https://spacenews.com/environmental-groups-sue-faa-over-starship-launch-license/
I think that is ongoing and has extra bits of evidence added with each launch
If there was lots of time between licence issue and the launch it authorises, there might be time to build legal argument to suspend the licence until case goes to trial?
Perhaps while this case is ongoing perhaps both FAA and SpaceX prefer the launch licence to authorise just one launch at a time and only ever issue amendments just before the launch?
@ChristopherRandles your link is broken (has some garbage at the end).
https://spacenews.com/environmental-groups-sue-faa-over-starship-launch-license/
@ChristopherRandles That is an intersting speculation. I think it sounds more realistic if you switch the causality around. I.E. FAA and SpaceX stay in communication and FAA provides estimates for when launch license will be given and SpaceX tries to launch as soon as they get it.
Something about the FAA withholding the license to deliberately help Spacex dodge environmental law suits sounds like cause for even more law suits. Not familiar with federal law just unsure of FAA’s ability to assist with companies outside of their explicit duties.
Even though i voted NO im still a huge fan and holding out that this is true.
@ChristopherRandles Boca Chica Gal has recieved an evacuation notice for tomorrows flight time. This is sounding less and less crazy. https://twitter.com/bocachicagal/status/1767952292567716212
@RyanTyznar It is probably less about dodging a lawsuit which already exists and more about
"The plaintiffs did not announce plans to seek an injunction halting launches while the case is considered."
Not announced doesn't mean they might try at some future date if it looks like it might have a chance.
If they ask for temporary injunction when the launch licence does not, at the time, allow a further launch. Is it urgent relevant and justified? Answer: not really. Future launches depend on future government scrutiny and case provides evidence about past regulatory scrutiny. So Judge is unlikely to suspend licence which doesn't allow a launch.
However if licence does allow a launch that could happen in a few days. Then is it urgent? Yes Would allowing launch deny plaintiff what they want? Plaintiffs want to stop harmful launches not monetary compensation so hearing the case before the launch is relevant. So there would be a much better chance of judge agreeing that an injunction should be granted for urgent and relevant reasons.
Re causality, I am suggesting it is more about jointly agreeing the best time rather than SpaceX wholly determining when FAA do it. I am not suggesting FAA might not do all the work they consider necessary.
If it is always coming out just before the launch, is this coincidence? FAA work expanding to fill time available? Or is a joint decision to do it just before SpaceX is ready, plausible? Or some other reason? Take your pick. My suggestion could be nonsense. Coincidence certainly seems possible as not many cases yet. FAA work expanding seems unlikely to me.
@ChristopherRandles I've heard the theory before, and it's like, maybe? But imo what we see is decently explained by SpaceX just wanting to launch as early as humanly possible, so if they get hints that the license is almost done, they start prepping everything to launch the moment it drops. If it turns out that they have to postpone a day because the license is delayed, then they just eat the costs for that.
We don't see this pattern with other companies because most wait for the license to drop and then pick a launch date.
@Mqrius If SpaceX is ready before FAA process is complete, SpaceX doing other work that can be done either now or later until FAA process is near complete when they switch to final launch preps seems entirely possible and could explain the simultaneousness. However is this the less likely way around?
Is it more likely that SpaceX couldn't be ready much ahead of mishap investigation closing because they need to know what the mishap investigation requires and then do it. So is it that the FAA work is done but announcing the mishap investigation closure is put on hold until it is needed?
@ChristopherRandles From what I understand SpaceX does a mishap investigation themselves and the FAA just stamps it. If they do it right the FAA basically just agrees with them and sends those changes back so if there were differences it’s possible there were basically none.
In this pdf the GAO is basically complaining that the FAA does this rather than leading the investigation themselves which it states they have the option to do but have never done. See third paragraph on page 1.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24105561.pdf
Also just want to say thanks to all who replied genuinely loving this convo and learning a lot too. Thanks!
@RyanTyznar I am probably going off the idea due to FWS Fish and Wildlife Service involvement last time.
Yes mishap investigation is SpaceX led.
Probably lots of other steps but
Analyse data, identify immediate cause, perhaps some testing to ensure this properly fits data, consider if there are alternative explanations that fit data as well or better. perhaps some testing to check data does rule out alternative explanations. Consider if there is deeper root cause(s). Etc until sure root causes are identified as far as possible.
Then decide what to do about root causes and any other consequent causes and effects.
At this stage could mishap investigation be closed? Maybe it is more convenient to leave open in case plans of what to do run into issues that requires those plans to be changed?
If closed here, before SpaceX has implemented plans there would likely be a long gap after mishap closure and before SpaceX is practically ready.
Instead it is kept open while SpaceX implements the remedial plans. Perhaps some purpose to this in case of any potential changes in plans. When space has implemented these and perhaps also done further work after this to get nearer ready to launch that didn't really require mishap investigation to stay open, then they close it at a time convenient to both FAA and SpaceX?
But I could easily be completely wrong.